Extract
[...] They make it possible to remedy serious injustices, or material errors likely to undermine the legitimacy of decisions. However, this right must be framed to preserve the authority of the thing judged and the effectiveness of the jurisdictional system. II- The limits of the right to retrial, a necessary framework to preserve the judicial order If the right to retrial constitutes an essential guarantee in administrative litigation, its exercise is strictly framed in order to preserve the fundamental requirements of legal stability and institutional efficiency. [...]
[...] According to the annual report of the Council of State, administrative courts recorded over 200,000 new cases in 2022, illustrating a structural overload. This overload complicates access to a speedy justice for litigants and sometimes compromises the effectiveness of the decisions made. However, effective management of administrative disputes requires reconciling the right to appeal with the requirements of speed and continuity of judicial action. To alleviate the congestion of the supreme jurisdictions, the Council of State has established filtering mechanisms, as provided for in Article R. [...]
[...] Since then, the Serval decision Sect May 2012, Serval, request n° 331346), « such an appeal can be exercised against any decision made by a specialized administrative jurisdiction». In this ruling, the Council of State recalled that the review, although strictly regulated, is an essential guarantee against blatant injustices that could result from a judicial decision tainted by major vices. The opposition, provided for in Article R.831-1 of the CJA, allows for any person who has not produced a regular defense during a judgment, to contest the decision rendered by default Ass June 1939, Caubet, request no. [...]
[...] Although it is not the subject of any explicit definition in the texts or administrative jurisprudence, the right to re-examination relies on procedural mechanisms inherent to administrative contentious proceedings. It can be understood as the right, for a litigant, to obtain a new examination of their case by an administrative jurisdiction. Its evolution is inscribed in a historical and structural dynamic: the creation of administrative courts in 1953, followed by that of administrative courts of appeal in 1987, established a two-tiered judicial system, thus consolidating the possibility of re-examining disputes on the merits as in law. [...]
[...] The cassation appeal is open of right against all decisions of administrative jurisdictions (Assembly of Aillières Judgment February 1947, case no. 79128). As the supreme jurisdiction of the administrative order, the Council of State effectively plays a regulatory role in administrative litigation by ensuring the unity of jurisprudence. Although limited to a control function, this appeal constitutes an indispensable instrument for preserving the legality of decisions and the stability of the judicial order. The ordinary appeals thus embody an essential guarantee of procedural fairness, allowing for a review of decisions within a rigorous legal framework. [...]
